Sunday, April 21, 2013

Blog post (from readings) #17 (Due Monday, April 22): "Big Bird Flies Right" (PBS); "Introduction," Television and the Performing Arts, by Brian G. Rose. Post thoughts or questions about the reading to the class blog for discussion. What struck you as interesting? What did you learn that you think you might remember five years from now?

9 comments:

  1. It is interesting to see that these same debates about the liberal/left-leaning agendas of public broadcasting organizations, particularly PBS and NPR, have played out numerous times in recent history and not just in the last two years or so -- i.e. Big Bird's meteoric return to pop culture relevancy upon Mitt Romney's mentioning of the Sesame Street character during the presidential debate while discussing PBS' public funding. This New Yorker piece does make me wonder, however, where the roots of this liberal idea of public broadcasting outlets came from -- could it be because the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was signed into law by President Johnson during the liberal '60s, and the original individuals in charge were appointed by liberal politicians?
    I also enjoyed learning that public programming arose from the idea that commercial television was a "vast wasteland," as then-FCC Chairman Newton Minow stated. Really makes me wonder what choice words he would use to describe today's television programming.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Both readings were very revealing about public broadcasting. It's interesting that when television began people thought it could be used for cultural performances like plays and operas yet it never really took off. It especially didn't work on cable television because people didn't want to pay for it. Now cultural performances are PBS's domain. Interesting how we're not willing to shell out more money for what PBS has to offer yet when there is the slightest hint of someone opposing public broadcasting or it needs funding, we're vocal about it. I think depending on government funding definitely puts PBS in an awkward position where it feels the need to be unbiased, inclusive, and innovative all at once. While having public discussion and debate is important in any medium, PBS having to change due to the new power in government (like when Republicans took control of Congress) in order to keep funding seems tiring. It's definitely a drawback, but PBS (and other government funded mediums) definitely have a lot to offer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I learned a lot about public broadcasting from both readings, but I much preferred reading “TV & the Performing Arts” over the “Big Bird Flies Right” because it was a more smoother read. I found the piece from the NY Times to be confusing and complicated. However, both readings did bring different issues to the table. I find it funny how in the 1930s, the public broadcasting emphasis was on cultural material, especially the operas, because the networks wanted to attract viewers with money in the hopes of gaining their support (and not to mention their monetary contributions). NBC event went as far to create its own opera company, “NBC Opera Theatre” because the belief at that time that satisfying the wealthier crowd would help to offset the high broadcasting costs. I think the idea that the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) must rely on government funding is kind of like an oxymoron. This relationship instantly puts immense pressure on PBS, a system that aims to maintain neutrality and innovation, to cater to the likes of government officials in order to ensure that it does not lose funding. This probably means that PBS at times is more concerned with how the government is going to react toward its programming, rather than staying true to its own values.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Both this readings illustrate that public broadcasting and cultural programming are bogged down with complicated political issues. In the New Yorker piece, we see how PBS programming is highly affected by the political atmosphere. The pressure from politicians to include more conservative viewpoints is certainly visible in the new shows and hiring efforts under Pat Mitchell. The reason these debates over content and representation occur is because the government contributes a large amount of funding to the station. However, the programming on PBS is largely cultural and associated with the arts, theater and music. Though these are all important topics, they attract small audiences as Brian Rose's introduction addresses. I think that the reason some of the early arts programs didn't succeed as PBS programming has is because the content is simply not as enjoyable through the television medium. A play or opera is always better in a theater--there is something about that experience that television cannot mimic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with Catherine that watching a play or opera is an experience that doesn't completely translate when viewed on television, but was surprised to learn that cultural programming was such a big part of early television. I had no idea that ABC "televised opening nets at the Metropolitan Opera" or that "CBS broadcast plays direct from Broadway theaters." The name "Operation Frontal Lobes" is a classic. Thank you, Sylvester (Pat) Weaver for coming up with that one.

    I liked the New Yorker piece more than the "TV & the Performing Arts" piece because it was more recent and I knew the players involved. I also enjoy any piece that explores conservatives wanting to have a greater impact on public television. I am glad that PBS decided that it was not a good idea for Lynne Cheney to host a show on the channel because it wasn't.

    Finally, I think Bill Moyers he was spot on when he wrote in an email "that C.P.B. has ordered up programs for ideological instead of journalistic reasons" when it hired Tucker Carlson and Paul Gigot to host shows on PBS. The network should not bow down to pressure to have a wide array of voices on the political spectrum on the air. It does not need "ideological warriors" (as Moyers called them) on the air.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It’s interesting that these cable organizations tried to cash in on plays and operas. ABC televised opening nights at the Metropolitan Opera, according to the reading. CBS broadcast plays and NBC even created its own opera company. I couldn’t imagine this being profitable today. Theater is suffering greatly. Attendance is low and plays are not in the public light like they used to be. Instead, the focus has shift toward the internet. All organizations, not just TV, are trying to appeal to digital audiences. Websites are scrambling to have television shows or reports online as soon as possible. This is far removed from the play and opera techniques. It’s amazing how peoples’ interest change over time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. One feature of the cycle that never fails is the tendency for every new medium to try to highlight the arts on a large scale in its early years. Pat Weaver’s Operation Frontal Lobe and NBC’s opera company are perfect examples. Broadcast pioneers seemed convinced that each new realm of media would somehow transform the public into uber intellectuals, so long as access was provided. They truly believed that a coal miner working 12 hour days would want nothing more than to kick back and watch La Boheme after a long day at work.

    The creation of accessible cultural programming has always been important. However, each time we’ve encountered the arts push in the cycle, I find myself wondering why broadcast networks consistently tried to push niche programming into prime time slots. I love theatre, so much so that I majored in it. Still I would much rather watch How I Met Your Mother after working an eight-hour day than NBC’s opera channel.

    The cycle shows time and again that audiences want intellectual content, but on their terms. Ford’s show was successful because it occupied the right time slot and presented a variety of topics. The content was diverse enough to hold the attention of all types of intellectuals and the Sunday time slot was more conducive to the attention required to sit through a full-length symphony. Five years from now, I think I will remember the artistic and cultural viewing trends we’ve seen so far this semester. People want to and will learn from their television programming, but on their own terms and according to their intellectual interests.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Reading the article on PBS made me think about the last time I even watched the station, and the truth is I don't know. This thought was most prominent when the article talked about the amount of time the station devoted to children's programming. When I was younger I would often watch PBS because of this reason. All of the shows like Sesame Street, Arthur, and Clifford the Big Red Dog were all shows I frequently watched. Now that I'm older I don't have an interest in any of those shows, but I am interested in some of the documentaries they show. The problem is that I don't even know what channel PBS is anymore. I also would rather watch a show on another channel that may be less educational and more entertaining. Typically I don't watch television to learn, but more often to get a good laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Like the numerous gadgets my father acquires with each trip to Bed Bath and Beyond, there are aspects of public television that seem like a good idea in theory but perhaps not in practice. Making cultural endeavors accessible to all, for example, is a worthwhile and noble endeavor, but when produced in several-hour long segments with grainy video quality, it becomes less desirable. Children's programming, however, is an aspect that works both in theory and in practice. What these two categories have in common, however, is a clear end goal that is complicated by politics and warring visions and intentions. (It was fascinating to read about Newt Gingrich's involvement and admission he listens to NPR). Personally, I doubt the relevance of public broadcasting as things become increasingly personalized; for example, I have an app on my phone that allows me to cull the headlines from specific outlets, based on my interests. While NPR and PBS have earned their space as cornerstones in many communities, they offer very generalized programs that aren't tailored in any specific way.
    One thing I found interesting is how expensive television is--"up to ten times more than radio," according to the second reading. ("Great Performances," costs WNET up to one million per hour, according to The New Yorker--another astounding figure, in addition to all the numbers that indicate how much CPB spends per year).

    ReplyDelete